WHAT HAVE I DONE?
The Ancient Lore
Kenobi: A Star Wars Story
Harry Potter Revisited
Game of Thrones Film Edits
Titanic Restructured
… and more.
Ok, ok. You’ve used it in two threads and are obviously looking for a bite, so here you go.
What does TAL stand for?
Ah, the part where Rey is more familiar with modifications her boss made years after Han lost the Falcon. Yeah, that doesn’t make any sense at all.
Look, I don’t need the condescending tone. Your point is noted, though it doesn’t seem like Rey really knew all that much about it otherwise. A minor quible and I get everyone clawing at my throat.
Condescension aside though his point is valid.
Ah, the part where Rey is more familiar with modifications her boss made years after Han lost the Falcon. Yeah, that doesn’t make any sense at all.
Look, I don’t need the condescending tone. Your point is noted, though it doesn’t seem like Rey really knew all that much about it otherwise. A minor quible and I get everyone clawing at my throat.
Condescension aside though his point is valid.
I agree. I hadn’t thought of it like that, though I’d rather Rey not undercut Han, the mentor character, pretty much right as he’s introduced. Story-wise it’s a bit odd to me. It’d be like if Luke had corrected Ben about the travelling methods of the sand people.
Ok, ok. You’ve used it in two threads and are obviously looking for a bite, so here you go.
What does TAL stand for?
The Animated Legend
Tales of Arabian Lightsabers
The Adventures of Lobot
chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.
If R1 didn’t even attempt it, why blame it for not being character-driven? Or does every movie need to be character driven?
“At least The Phantom Menace tried to make a step-in-the-poop joke that isn’t completely tasteless, they horribly failed, but at least they tried. I can’t say the same of Citizen Kane.”
R1 barely attempted to have characters at all. If the Death Star and other iconic Star Wars imagery weren’t in it, then nothing about the film would be even remotely memorable.
And your analogy is not worth addressing.
You still didn’t answer if every movie needs to be character-driven.
I think that almost every movie should have you caring about the characters one way or the other. Having boring characters is generally a sign of bad film-making. But not every movie needs to advance primarily by characters going through a phase of big changes, which is what I would understand by character-driven.
Ceci n’est pas une signature.
Ok, ok. You’ve used it in two threads and are obviously looking for a bite, so here you go.
What does TAL stand for?
http://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/1141187
I assume, based on the thread the other one is in, that it’s TLJ and it’s translated into something in Norway that makes it TAL.
I thought that would be Den Siste Jedi.
But I could be wrong.
His placement of it in his ranking makes me think it’s a “”“Hilarious”"" acronym.
But I could be wrong.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2527336/releaseinfo
Norway Star Wars: The Last Jedi
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The Absolute Legend.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2527336/releaseinfo
Norway Star Wars: The Last Jedi
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
TLA- I think it’s this
Handman, I apologize for my shitty tone, I just can’t help getting snippy over stuff like this two years later where the answer has been sitting right there the entire time. I’m sorry if this was something you honestly overlooked, but so many people who harp on Rey’s purportedly unearned prowess/savvy tend to willfully ignore these details just to sustain their arguments. The fact that you didn’t employ the dread M-S word should’ve been enough for me not to assume you were posting in bad faith, so again, sorry. It’s just frustrating that there are so many people out there who don’t want to get it.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2527336/releaseinfo
Norway Star Wars: The Last Jedi
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
TLA- I think it’s this
Oh, so he put his own TPM edit above all the OT?
Lol!
JEDIT: Maybe he thought this was the “what order to watch” thread?
The Absolute Legend.
What.
The Absolute Legend.
What.
It’s the name of my Legend fanedit. I don’t know how he knows about it, though, seeing as it doesn’t exist.
Handman, I apologize for my shitty tone, I just can’t help getting snippy over stuff like this two years later where the answer has been sitting right there the entire time. I’m sorry if this was something you honestly overlooked, but so many people who harp on Rey’s purportedly unearned prowess/savvy tend to willfully ignore these details just to sustain their arguments. The fact that you didn’t employ the dread M-S word should’ve been enough for me not to assume you were posting in bad faith, so again, sorry. It’s just frustrating that there are so many people out there who don’t want to get it.
Thanks. This is honestly the second time I’ve ever seen the film since its release in 2015, so I haven’t really spent much time thinking about it. I have no issues otherwise, it was just a weird moment for me that hinges more on the execution of the idea rather than the idea itself.
Ok, ok. You’ve used it in two threads and are obviously looking for a bite, so here you go.
What does TAL stand for?
The Awakens Lost.
Handman said:
Things I noticed this go-around:
- The humour was not my style and took me out a lot.
- The title theme sounded more like a parody than the theme proper.
- Rey being able to pilot the Falcon better than Han, and the unexplained change in the treatment of droids was odd and a little annoying.
- The Rathtar scene is atrocious and serves little to no purpose.
Not all of it was bad. I noticed John Williams’ score a lot more, and was able to appreciate it more. Everything with Kylo Ren was great. I enjoyed everything else about the same.
I’d mostly agree on all those points though I’ll have to re-listen to the opening theme as I don’t think I felt that way. I did find as well though that upon initial viewing at the cinema, William’s score was quite muted and hard to hear a lot of the time compared to the other SW movies, PT included. It’s something that annoyed me and I actually commented on at the time upon leaving the cinema.
If R1 didn’t even attempt it, why blame it for not being character-driven? Or does every movie need to be character driven?
“At least The Phantom Menace tried to make a step-in-the-poop joke that isn’t completely tasteless, they horribly failed, but at least they tried. I can’t say the same of Citizen Kane.”
R1 barely attempted to have characters at all.
I kind of felt that way about Jyn and Cassian at first, but I have found them to be more interesting on subsequent viewings.
But most of the other characters are fantastic. Baze, Chirrut, K2SO, Krennic, Galen Erso…I enjoyed all of them right from the start.
These are my thoughts as well. On initial viewing there didn’t feel there was a lot there but on repeat viewings I’m getting more from Jyn and Cassian, to the extent that I feel like they do have a decent depth and detail to their characters but it just takes time to come out. Once you know the main story you do have more time to take in their lines and ponder their motives and pasts that are alluded to.
.Val
Ah, the part where Rey is more familiar with modifications her boss made years after Han lost the Falcon. Yeah, that doesn’t make any sense at all.
Look, I don’t need the condescending tone. Your point is noted, though it doesn’t seem like Rey really knew all that much about it otherwise. A minor quible and I get everyone clawing at my throat.
Condescension aside though his point is valid.
I agree. I hadn’t thought of it like that, though I’d rather Rey not undercut Han, the mentor character, pretty much right as he’s introduced. Story-wise it’s a bit odd to me. It’d be like if Luke had corrected Ben about the travelling methods of the sand people.
I actually agree. I didn’t dislike it for any sexist or “marysue knows better than Han” type reasons, or even that it didn’t make perfect sense story wise, I just didn’t like it for tonal reasons. I just felt it was a bit annoying/cheap. If it had been placed later in the film after we were passed the “holy shit it’s Han solo back in action again” phase I probably wouldn’t have minded it at all.
HAHAHA! Although I love the funny remarks, I of course meant TLJ - i am so used to writing TAL (due to a fanedit) that i mixed them up.
I DO NOT favour my own edit above the original. Altough I kinda wish I did, looking at the legendary irony in that. Oh man.
WHAT HAVE I DONE?
The Ancient Lore
Kenobi: A Star Wars Story
Harry Potter Revisited
Game of Thrones Film Edits
Titanic Restructured
… and more.
If R1 didn’t even attempt it, why blame it for not being character-driven? Or does every movie need to be character driven?
“At least The Phantom Menace tried to make a step-in-the-poop joke that isn’t completely tasteless, they horribly failed, but at least they tried. I can’t say the same of Citizen Kane.”
R1 barely attempted to have characters at all. If the Death Star and other iconic Star Wars imagery weren’t in it, then nothing about the film would be even remotely memorable.
And your analogy is not worth addressing.
You still didn’t answer if every movie needs to be character-driven.
Of course not, but it is important when the main plot isn’t compelling or interesting, especially since we know exactly how it’s going to turn out. We know they’ll get the plans, so it would seem logical to have it be character driven since the main plot is straightforward and already spoiled.
I think that almost every movie should have you caring about the characters one way or the other. Having boring characters is generally a sign of bad film-making. But not every movie needs to advance primarily by characters going through a phase of big changes, which is what I would understand by character-driven.
My phrasing was a bit off, but R1 didn’t seem to make much effort to have compelling characters. Most were without personality and the ones that were interesting got little focus.
The Person in Question
If R1 didn’t even attempt it, why blame it for not being character-driven? Or does every movie need to be character driven?
“At least The Phantom Menace tried to make a step-in-the-poop joke that isn’t completely tasteless, they horribly failed, but at least they tried. I can’t say the same of Citizen Kane.”
R1 barely attempted to have characters at all. If the Death Star and other iconic Star Wars imagery weren’t in it, then nothing about the film would be even remotely memorable.
And your analogy is not worth addressing.
You still didn’t answer if every movie needs to be character-driven.
Of course not, but it is important when the main plot isn’t compelling or interesting
Well that’s your opinion as well.
Do you actually think that the R1 plot would be compelling had it not been littered with Star Wars imagery? Take away the Death Star and replace it with some other space device and I don’t think anyone would have been interested.
I actually like a number of things in R1. I think it’s better than TFA and has some valuable stuff in it. Visually, the film is stunning. There are some fantastic action sequences and it’s well directed overall.
The Person in Question
Do you actually think that the R1 plot would be compelling had it not been littered with Star Wars imagery? Take away the Death Star and replace it with some other space device and I don’t think anyone would have been interested.
I actually like a number of things in R1. I think it’s better than TFA and has some valuable stuff in it. Visually, the film is stunning. There are some fantastic action sequences and it’s well directed overall.
What, take away the very thing the movie is about? You are not making much sense.
“Rogue one: the movie about the death star plans, but really it is just a long character study staring Dr evazan, and there is a giant basket instead of a death star.”
Do you actually think that the R1 plot would be compelling had it not been littered with Star Wars imagery? Take away the Death Star and replace it with some other space device and I don’t think anyone would have been interested.
I actually like a number of things in R1. I think it’s better than TFA and has some valuable stuff in it. Visually, the film is stunning. There are some fantastic action sequences and it’s well directed overall.
What, take away the very thing the movie is about? You are not making much sense.
“Rogue one: the movie about the death star plans, but really it is just a long character study staring Dr evazan, and there is a giant basket instead of a death star.”
Yeah, that’s not at all what I’m saying. Thanks for oversimplifying it to make me sound like an idiot, though. I really appreciate that. What I’m saying is, the only reason that the Death Star plans are compelling is because we all know the Death Star and we know all the iconic imagery. If Rogue One weren’t in the Star Wars universe but was still about these exact same characters doing the exact same thing except they were fighting bad guys that weren’t stormtroopers and were looking for plans for a planet-destroying vessel that wasn’t the Death Star, this movie would not be very compelling. I know that’s my opinion, but I’m trying to ask if anyone here would honestly think that this exact same movie, without the Star Wars imagery, would be even remotely interesting.
The Person in Question